02 Comer 18 Cover: Fill & Download for Free

Let me First introduce myself.. I'm sixteen year old girl and studying in class 11th and A PCBStudent (I love drawing but there was no arts in my school so I decided to take Biology, I know That's stupid reason but that's true)I have been given A specific tag, “The Late Comer" .I don't why but at every event I reach late..Beginning My Story.. My bus timing is 7:13 am (Approx)Date:- 18 November. Time :-7:15 amSo i was quickly dashing to the bus stop.On one hand carrying water Bottle and other hand’s fingers crossed,So that i can catch the bus..*MISSED*Date:-19 November. Time:-7:09 amI was was along the streets smiling and greeting everyone beacuse I was confident that i will surely catch the bus. I reached bus stop and there were no other bachmates from my school..*MISSED*Date:- 20 November. Time:- 7:02 amI was now running like hell so that i could finally board the bus and Not to hear tantrums of my mom.. I reached the bus stop and saw bus was going.. I was running behind the bus like DDLJ scene but was of no use..So, I already covered 1/4th the distance to the school. So i decided instead of hearing mom's taunts and causing her any sort of tension.. I decided to walk other 3/4th distance..I was just just walking walking walking Walking.. For the next half an hour and completed the half distance.. I was totally exhausted at that point.. I thought It's okay if I reach school late but i won't leave at any cost.. TURNING POINT:- After walking some few minutes , An Unknown peculiar aunty Suddenly halted and asked if i need any sort of help and I got a new hope and jumped into her vehicle and she drove me to school..She was such a generous and kind hearted lady.. My legs were paining and aching like hell but i attended the school and went home back with a broad grin..Date:- 22 November. Time:-6:50 am.Again, *MISSED* But that's because new driver was appointed for my bus.. But My Mother calmy dropped me to school ..Peace out!!✌✌

Not Lata Mangeshkar, though most certainly Asha Bhosle.But we all know what Ashaji can do. She may be the greatest singer of Hindi Film Music, but a third grade human being.What treatment she meted out to R.D.Burman’s late mother Meera Dev Burman after his death, how she treated her own daughter-in-law Sajida Bhosle (estranged wife of her eldest son Hemant Bhosle), how she tortured the great actress of yesteryear late Sadhnaji,how she rebuked late composer Jaidev Vermaji in 1971 once she learnt that he had got a song recorded by Vani Jairam -a fact that has often quoted by Anwar Hussain- and how much trouble she gave Naushad when she was told to record ‘Kaho to aaj bol doon’ for the film Aaina (1977) with Vani Jairam is a part of music industry folklore. As a result of her high-handed behavior, Asha’s portion was recorded at Film Centre and Vani’s at Mehboob Studios. Finally, Vani’s portion did not find a place on the music album. She even threatened B N Sharma Studio for having recorded Vani Jairam.See link below for what Sajida Bhosle have to say about great Ashatai :https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjOvIK0ypreAhULs48KHYq7A-cQwqsBMAB6BAgDEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiOf0LwWu1nU&usg=AOvVaw1VYM2UBrIw2MhPJtNk1u0GFor how much care she took of late Meera Dev Burman click on the following link :A Bungalow, A Ma-In-LawIn 1969 Naushad had said to a journalist ‘Asha mein who baat nahin jo Lata mein hai, unki awaaaz se bazarupan aaj tak nahin gaya’.When that journalist brought this statement in public domain albeit late in 1981, Asha had the guts and gumption to ask for explanation.Naushad had to issue a clarification stating that may be his ears were closed on her music. This incident taught Naushad that Asha-who was a dark horse till Lata rule the roost-can be more high-handed, dominating,ruthless, and authoritative compared to her elder sister.Distraught, Naushad never took playback from Asha Bhosle once he made his comeback in 1990s. Neither in Aawaz De Kahan Hai (1990), nor in Teri Payal Mere Geet (1993), nor in Guddu (1995) and certainly not in his swan song Taj Mahal :An Eternal Love Story (2005). Ironically, in 2 of these score (no. 2 and 3) he went back to Lata Mangeshkar despite her degraded vocals. Please don't be confused as to how Asha features in two of Naushad’s movies post this episode : Dharamkanta (1982) and Love and God (1986). The songs of the first movie were recorded by 1980 and that’s how we find 4 songs by Mohammed Rafi. As for the second, its songs were recorded well by 1971 (its director Karimuddin Asif died in 1971).She has always been a highly selfish person, an opportunist, the one who wants to eat cake and have it too.She has always been jealous of her elder sister Lataji and till date makes fun of her way of talking and singing in interviews and in concerts, not to talk of backstabbing her whenever the opportunity arises. A few examples :1) At the age of 15, she eloped with Ganpatrao Bhosle, bringing immense shame and disrepute to the family, since an inter-caste marriage between a Brahmin and Kshatriya (Bhosle) was not very much acceptable 70 years back.To top it all, it was a fatherless family of 1 lady (Mai Mangeshkar) and 4 girls ( Lata, Meena, Usha and one cousin) and the oldest male member was an 11 year old child (Bal or Hridaynath). Since Asha was also a bread-earner, her elopement made 19 year old Lata still living in chawl at Nana Chowk the sole breadwinner of the family.2)Between 1948-60 she would not talk to Lataji, not even in the studio, though would call all else in the family. Media at that time had believed that it was Lata’s fault, given that she was more successful.3) In mid-1950s, she sat outside Salil Chowdhuri's recording studio for the whole day. When he could not meet her, she famously taunted 'Chamatkar ko Namaskar'. Nobody knew whether she referred to Lataji as Chamatkar (miracle) or was it Salil Chowdhuri who deserved the word.Fact remains, Asha for all her vocal virtuosity could sing only 31 songs for Salilda as against 128 songs sung by Lataji. For the record Ashaji had sung in the last Hindi Film of Salilda ‘Swami Vivekanand’ (1998). The song was recorded in 1994 and it goes ‘Sanyasi Talashi Jiski Hai’ and it was a duet between Ashaji and Yesudas. In the same movie Lataji was also offered 2 songs, which was rendered by Kavitha Krishnamurthy.4) Because of her illicit relationship with late O P Nayyar (which was very necessary for the advancement of her career since Lata and OPN did not see eye to eye), quarrels started between her and Ganpatrao and one fine day in 1960, she left her marital home to land in Prabhu Kunj. Lata had gone out for recording. Once she came back, she did not want to let Asha stay next to her. After all besides bringing disrepute to the family and not being on speaking terms with her for 12 long years, she was known to befriend any person with whom Lata had a fallout. Case in point : Raj Kapoor ( once Lata refused to sing Main Bazaron Ki Rani for his Boot Polish(1954), Asha conveyed to him her willingness to sing that song and in turn snatched the entire soundtrack from Lata. Similarly, when she learnt that Raj Kapoor and Lataji had fallen out once again after the former’s refusal to pay royalty for the songs, she conveyed her desire to not only sing for Mera Naam Joker(1970) but with as many rehearsals as required)O P Nayyar (1952–1972), S D Burman 1958–1961) and C Ramchandra.However, upon requests from her mother and seeing how heavily pregnant Asha was with her third child, Lata reluctantly let Asha in. Later on, when Lata confronted her for not speaking to her for the last 12 years, Asha very conveniently put all the blame on Ganpatrao.5) Slowly Lata's anger against Asha started to evaporate, more so after the birth of Asha's son Anand in 1960 itself. Lataji treated the newborn like her own.6) In 1962, Lataji was given slow poisoning, due to which she had to forego recording for 3 and a half months. It had a permanent detrimental effect on her vocal chords also for her highest high ‘Woh Ek Nigah Kya Mili’ (Half Ticket, 1962) -where she hit B6 (in staccato portion) effortlessly and without strain for the last time, proving that she was the real soprano -was recorded around the same time. Her ability to hold breath reduced from 11 seconds in 1963 ( she had held it for 15 seconds at the end of Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya, Mughal-e-Azam, 1960) to 9 a year later. This incident was underreported by media for it went counter to its narrative of Lata Mangeshkar’s monopoly. It is clear which singer would have gained maximum mileage had Lataji’s vocals become unfit for SINGING.IT also does not need telling which singer had access to Lataji’s kitchen and food. After this incident, Lataji a born introvert turned more aloof, reclusive and elusive.7)In the same year, Lata approached Asha who was living just next to her to support her on royalty issue. Her decision was prompted by her frequent sinus problem coupled with recently administered slow poison.Being the 2nd best female singer in Hindi films after Lata (at that time), Asha's support would have mattered a lot. Asha refused to support her sister point blank,leaving her alone at this crucial stage which led to her fallout with Rafi.8)After this time came Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon (January 27, 1963). Asha had already rehearsed with C Ramchandra. Lata was not there in picture at all. However, poet late Pradeep was not at all in favour of her singing, given her sensuous image. He approached Lata. Lata not been told that it was first designed as a solo by Asha agreed. When Asha learnt that she would have to 'share' this song with didi, she felt cheated (of course anyone would), her ego hurt (which is natural) and then her inferiority complex got the better of her.She would be sidelined in the same way,she was sidelined on May 01, 1960 when on the formation day of her own state Maharashtra, the same Lata Mangeshkar and not she was called in to sing 'Bahu asot sundar sampanna ki maha, Priya amucha ek Maharashtra desh ha' in the presence of same Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. If she was overlooked in her own Mumbai, she would be neglected in Delhi as well. But she would not yield yet, just yet. She would teach such a hard lesson to mighty Mangeshkar that she would not forget for a lifetime. Let Lata rehearse the song as if it is a duet, same way as she has been duped into believing that it was to be her solo song. And finally when it came to go to Delhi she refused to accompany Lata at the 11th hour leaving from Lata to C Ramchandra to Pradeep in a quandary. It is to Lata's credit that she rehearsed Asha's portion in flight and did such a justice to the song that nobody had a clue as there was to be an Asha Bhosle too in the song.Unexpectedly, the song touched Nehru's heart. What Asha had presumed would be an embarrassing moment for Lata turned out to be her moment of pride.Thus began the theory, the sob story and the self pity as to how Lata snatched the song from Asha, which resurfaced in 1997 once Lata was called in parliament to sing ‘Saare Jahan Se Achha’ at the beginning of 50th Independence Day celebrations. With her daughter Varsha Bhosle, being a journalist this lie was repeated time and again on web portal rediff, The Sunday Observer and even Times of India and as we know a lie repeated hundred times gets credence as truth.The next year, Asha too was called in the parliament at the insistence of Sharad Pawar. However, world at her feet, with her being the first Indian singer to have been nominated for Grammy Award, to winning MTV award to Channel V award to Screen Videocon award for her album 'Jaanam Samjha Karo’to singing from Khayyam (Asha aur Khayyam, non film Ghazals,1997) to Salil Chowdhuri (Swami Vivekanand, 1998) to Ustad Ali Akbar Khan (Legacy, non film classical,1997) to Bhupen Hazarika (Darmiyaan,1997) to Vanraj Bhatia (Sardari Begum,1996/7) to Ilayaraja (Aur Ek Prem Kahani,1996) to Bappi Lahiri (Agnichakra, 1997) to Rajesh Roshan (Yuhgpurush, 1997/8) to Raamlaxman (Luv Kush , 1997) to Anand Milind (Daayra,1997) to Uttam Singh (Dil To Pagal Hai,1997 )to Viju Shah ( Aar Ya Paar, 1997) to A.R.Rahman ( Daud, Iruvar, Kabhi Na Kabhie(all 1997))to Karthik Raja (Grahan, soundtrack released in 1997 and film released in 2001) to Aadesh Srivastva (Salma Pe Dil Aa Gaya,1997) to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (Aur Pyar Ho Gaya,1997)to Vishal Bhardwaj (Chachi 420, and Betaabi 1997) to Santosh Nair (Chand Grahan, 1997) to Leslie Louis (Jaanam Samjha Karo, non-film, 1997) she rejected the offer stating her prior commitment for concerts abroad (rightly so). Her voice had launched two actresses who would rule the moviedom in the next decade : Rani Mukherji ( Raja Ki Aayegi Baarat, 1996) Aishwarya Rai (Iruvar and Aur Pyar Ho Gaya, both 1997). [Lataji had to wait for 6 long years to sing for the former (Mujhse Dosti Karoge,2002) and 3 years to croon for the latter (Mohabbatein,2000) till they were signed by Yash Raj Films. ]Why to play second fiddle to someone you have already surpassed ? Why to live under the shadow of a banyan tree, if you have overgrown it?In the war of roses, it is Anuradha Paudwal who got the maximum mileage. After Asha refused to sing in parliament, it was Anuradha who was given this privilege and Ashaji missed the opportunity. Anuradha, by the virtue of Asha’s blunder not only got to bypass Asha in parliament, but also managed to more than equal her score with once-a-Devi-now-nobody Lataji (did not Raamlaxam to utter shock of many of the blind fans of Lataji reiterated in May 1998 issue of Filmfare ‘Lataji is not God, God is God’) in at least one respect, for what took 55 years of her career for Lata Mangeshkar to enter the citadel of Indian democracy, Anuradha managed to travel the same distance after 24 years of her debut.As for Lataji, her output had been reduced to just 4 films that year (1997) : Luv Kush, Salma Pe Dil Aa Gaya, Betaabi,Dil to Pagal Hai and one non- film album Chand Grahan ( Lataji’s 2 songs were recorded way back in 1973 under the baton of late Jaidev Verma). She could never get a song from Viju Shah, Karthik Raja,Santosh Nair and Leslie Louis, Khayyam never approached Lataji after Ek Naya Rishta (1988), Salil Chowdhuri passed away in 1995 to offer any song to Lataji, Ustad Ali Akbar Khan too did not feel the need to collaborate with her after Humsafar (1953), she had not sung a single Hindi song for Ilayraja till then,she could not sing any of Bhupen Hazarika song after Rudaali(1993), Rajesh Roshan did not get any of his songs sung by her after Karan Arjun(1995), Bappi Lahiri did not feel the need of her vocals after Policewala Gunda (1995), Anand-Milind had abandoned her post Lootere(1993, they got her to sing a song in 2006, but the movie never got released) and Vanraj Bhatia did not work with her after Tarang(1984), such low was her acceptance among music directors by this time- from classical stalwarts to seniors to contemporary ones to new comers all of them seemed to have abandoned her, deserted her. Of course Lataji sang for Rahman in Jiya Jale (Dil Se,1998), it never got the kind of popularity which Asha’s 2 songs in Rangeela (1995) and 2 songs in Daud (1997) got. While Ashaji’s songs in Rangeela were the most popular in the album, Lataji’s only song in Dil Se was next in popularity after Chhaiya Chaiyya. Lataji sang for Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan’s compositions as well in Kachche Dhaage (1998), only to let Sukhwinder Singh and Kumar Sanu overshadow her in Oopar Khuda and Dil Pardesi Ho Gaya songs respectively.Though Dil To Pagal Hai (1997) was the best selling score of 1997 , Lataji sang 8 out of 9 songs in the album (1 song ‘Chanda Ki Chandni’ with Kumar Sanu was released in 2008 by Yash Raj Films) and won Zee Cine Award for Best Female Playback Singer too, the facts remains that it was Asha who was noticed the most for her single number ‘Le Gayi Le Gayi’despite it being the weakest melody in the album. This song too was composed with Lataji in mind. However, Yash Chopra believed that Ashaji was better suited for the song. Such was her standing then. And, Yashji’s stand stood vindicated by her song delivery. While Lataji’s off-key rendition of the title track further established the fact that she can no longer always be trusted to sing tunefully - even for her ardent admirer Yash Chopra.Such low was Lataji’s standing in industry that she was not even allowed to speak when she went to collect her ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ trophy in 1999.9) Once Lata-Rafi stopped recording with each other, it's Asha who got the maximum mileage apart from Suman Kalyanpur. This went on till 1965, when Rafi's ego was hurt by none other than Asha Bhosle, when she surpassed him in Aaja Aaja Main Hoon Pyar Tera (Teesri Manzil, released in 1966).Actually it was the same ego hurt that had made him have a fight with Lata, since Salil Chowdhury had favoured Lata's rendition over Rafi's in 'Tasweer Teri Dil Mein' song from Chaaya(1961).But at least Lata had kept quiet. In Asha's case, she started boasting her new talent (of pulverizing a singer as great as Rafi)to whosoever cared to listen, much to embarrassment of late Rafi. She proudly mentions this in her interviews till date as to how there was a bet of Rs. 500 between Nasir Hussain and R.D. Burman and how the former had to pay the latter. Rafi, like Naushad 6 year later realised that given a chance Asha was more ruthless than Lata Mangeshkar and patched-up with Lata Mangeshkar at the earliest available opportunity.Suman Kalyanpur be damned, for now she was of no use to Rafi.10) In 1989 Subhash Ghai- who is considered as a Movie Director having an ear for Music-first signed R D Burman for his next film Ram Lakhan (1989) and then unceremoniously announced that his regular Laxmikant- Pyarelal would be giving music for the film which had shocked R.D. Burman to no end and he mentioned the same in an interview with Filmfare.Though there were solid reason for the same, like LP's songs from films like Mr. India (1987), Sindoor (1987),Biwi Ho To Aisi (1988),Dayavan (1988), Charnon Ki Saugandh (1988),Bees Saal Baad (1988) and Tezaab (1988) were constantly on the top of the charts, while RD's songs were not appealing the audience. After this incident RD met with a heart attack.Asha talks about RD in public now and then and feels sadness for his non-recognition during his lifetime. However, the same Asha did not blink an eye once the same Subhash Ghai called her to record a song for Taal (1999) and Yaadein (2001). She even went to his Whistlewoods.11) In 2007, Himesh Reshammiya passed some negative comments about RD Burman’s nasal voice and Ashaji said he should be slapped.Next, she sang a song for him in Aap Ka Suroor (2007).12)Unlike Lata, Asha does not take her defeats so easily.She made such a hue and cry and passed indignant comments on Sunidhi Chauhan and Ram Gopal Verma, once she learnt that Sunidhi has sung the remix version of Mehbooba from Sholay (1975) in his movie Ram Gopal Verma Ki Aag (2007) as she firmly believed that it was her birthright to remix R.D. songs.She forgot the fact that when other moviemakers of his generation turned their face from her, it was he who would give her songs in film after film from Drohi (1992) to Rangeela (1995) to Daud (1997) to Satya (1998) to Mast (1999) to Pyar Tune Kya Kiya (2001) to Love Ke Life Kuchh Bhai Karega (2001) to Company (2002).13) In 2009 a song recorded by Asha in the movie Raavanan/Raavan (2010) were not retained either in record or in the movie. She did not like it one bit and made her displeasure known to everyone who cared to listen.14)While Lataji is known to be supporting her family, commemorating her father’s death anniversary since 1943, doing concert in Hirabaug Pune on May 02, 1954 to support Goa liberation, arranging marriage of her younger sister Usha Mangeshkar in 1963, instituting Dinanath Mangeshkar Award, doing concerts for Indian Army, Indian Cricket Team (1983),Gujarat Earthquake Relief (2001) or through donation to Kashmir Earth Quake Relief Fund (2005) , Asha has started such such charity work in January, 2013 after the death of her daughter Varsha Bhosle.Too late, too little. See link below :Asha Bhosle sets up charitable trust in memory of late daughter | BizAsia | Media, Entertainment, Showbiz, Events and MusicSee link also of Lataji’s patriotism :Story of Goa's freedom, a forgotten fight of independenceDadra and Nagar Haveli: When an IAS officer became the instrument of accessionHear How Lata Mangeshkar Helped Liberate Goa in Her Own VoiceWhen Lata Mangeshkar Performed for 1983 World Champion team IndiaA Champion Speaks | Lata Mangeshkar's Concert Helped Players Financially After 1983 Win: Kapil DevLata Mangeshkar to sing at quake fund raiser - Times of India5 unknown facts about Lata Mangeshkar | The Times of India15)In 2003, Lataji completed 75 years of her illustrious life.A huge function was held in Mumbai by her family. The entire film fraternity was present. The person conspicuous by her absence was Asha Bhosle.16) She herself in a candid interview admitted of having fought with Pancham over giving his best romantic songs Didi Lata Mangeshkar.Click the link below.Pancham gave best songs to Lata: Asha - The Himalayan Times17) One would think that Ashaji would be possessive about Pancham’s music only,given that he was her lover and husband. However she could not digest the fact that late Madan Mohan would prefer Lataji over her and would voice her opinion very loud and clear.See the link below to read his son’s statement.http://www.madanmohan.in/press/filmfare_dec07.pdf18)Many a times Lata Mangeshkar has left a song to be sung by her for other singers. Many a times it was due to illness like ‘Ek Baat Kahoon Mere Piya’ (Amar, 1954) and 7 songs of Rukhsana (1955). Some other occasions due to double meaningful lyrics (according to her) like ‘Abhi Na Jao Chhodkar’. At other times due to obscenity like ‘Ang Lagja Balma’ (Mera Naam Joker, 1970). Most of the times Asha Bhosle has been the beneficiary. In 1954,she left all her songs rehearsed for late Mohammed Shafi-who had earlier arranged a Moulvi for her to learn Urdu- for the film Mangu for Suman Kalyanpur, since Shafi after hearing to Sumanji in Marathi film Shukrachi Chandni (1953) opined that she was a talented girl and should be given a chance. Not only that Lataji came to Sumanji first Hindi film song recording.Bad luck for Suman, after she recorded her songs, O P Nayyar replaced Shafi as a music director and only one of 3 songs (Koi Pukare Dhire Se Tujhe) featuring Suman was retained.The movie did not work as well. This episode has always been underreported. O. P. Nayyar later employed Sumanji as a chorus singer in Aar Paar (1954) song ‘Mohabbat Karlo Ji Bhar Lo Aji Kisne Roka Hai’, while her other song ‘Kabhi Aar Kabhi Paar Laga Teer-e-Nazar’ was mercilessly dubbed by Shamshad Begum- a lady would always hold Mangeshkar sisters responsible for her downfall.The people who accuse Lata Mangeshkar of ruining Suman Kalyanpur’s career either forget or deliberately gloss over the fact that her downfall came in 1980s when Lata Mangeshkar had already reduced her workload substantially (she would be given one song in most of the films) and even composers have started avoiding her (Kalyanji-Anandji and Ravindra Jain recorded very rarely with Lataji throughout 1980s) due to her deteriorating vocal prowess combined with lack of dedication towards perfection & final quality of output, lack of professionalism (she would learn, rehearse and complete recording in one shift starting at 09:00 AM and ending at 03:00 PM and would not wait a moment to listen to finally recorded song), high fee (₹ 25,000/song),royalty, her being out of Mumbai for at least four months a year for concerts and holidaying not to talk of her weekend trips out of India, her extremely low opinion about music being composed those days et cetera, but Asha was still going strong. They also gloss over the fact that one of the reasons for Suman Kalyanpur’s self imposed exile was that a song sung by her was dubbed by Kavita Krishnamurthy- who preached Anuradha Paudwal when the latter dubbed Alka Yagnik’s 3 songs in Itihaas (1997)-in Love 86 (1986) and another by Asha Bhosle in Allah Rakha (1986).In fact in a Jaymala programme on Vividh Bharti, Suman Kalyanpur openly praised Lataji and played 2 of her songs. In what came as a surprise to many, she did not talk about Rafi/ Asha at all nor did she play any of their songs. See the link below :Lata Mangeshkar even invited Sumanji for the premiere of ‘Lekin’ (1991), which she happily attended. After she was presented Lata Mangeshkar Award-2009 by Government of Maharashtra in January 2010, she denied that Lata Mangeshkar had any role in obstructing her career. She said, ‘I would not have achieved whatever I have, had such things been in place.’Second instance dates back to 1963 when Lataji refused to dub title song of ‘Mere Humrahi’ sung by Mubarak Begum (with Mohammed Rafi) despite numerous request from the composer Jaikishan Dayabhai Panchal of Shankar-Jaikishan team.Third instance of helping out a new singer came was in 1980, when she left a song, scratch version of which was sung by Kavita Krishnamurthy as a dummy artist under the music direction of Bappi Lahiri. Kavita Krishnamurthy had herself stated this in an interview with Harish Bhimani. According to her, this event was mis-reported in a Telugu magazine and she got afraid that she won't be getting even dummy singer’s job. However, everything was clear after she read a report in a Hindi magazine wherein it was mentioned that Lata did not record the song despite being repeatedly told by Bappida and the filmmaker.You can go through the book ‘In Search of Lata Mangeshkar’ by Harish Bhimani to read more about the episode. Later on Asha Bhosle recorded the song. Read from Kavita’s own interview:Computer software has robbed the magic of original voices and most songs sound clinical: Kavita KrishnamurthyFourth instance dates back to 1982/3, which was narrated by Anuradha Paudwal in an interview with Kavita Chhibar. According to her, she had recorded 2 songs in Hero (1983) as a dummy singer, which were to be sung by Lataji later. Lataji decided not to sing these 2 songs and as a result Anuradha Paudwal got the first major hit of her career. The songs were ‘Tu Mera Jaanu Hai’ and ‘Ding Dong’.Ashaji has never shown such generosity in her 76 year long career.Please see the link below to see Anuradha’s version.http://www.cinemasangeet.com/hindi-film-music/interviews/dil-hai-ki-maanata-nahi.htmlLataji even praised Anuradha along with Alka Yagnik and Sadhana Sargam in an interview in 1984 with Society Magazine. See link below :http://magnamags.com/society/sepia-memories/lata-mangeshkar-s-rare-old-interview/1491It’s sad that same Anuradha levelled such vicious charges of monopoly on Lataji, threatened to dub all her three songs sung in Radha Ka Sangam (1992), brought out cover versions of all the popular Hindi film songs of Lataji by taking a backseat from playback singing for 5 years just to insult and humiliate Lataji and poisoned Gulshan Kumar against Lata Mangeshkar so much that T-Series company stopped paying any royalty to Lataji leading to Lata Mangeshkar’s inserting a term in her contract that the copyright of her songs should not go to Super Cassette Industries Limited (T-Series) as a result Gulshan Kumar could not get copyright of music of Dil To Pagal Hai (1997).In fact, when Runa Laila came to Mumbai in 1974 to perform in what would be her first concert in India organised by ICCR, it was Lata Mangeshkar who was present as the chief guest, not Ashaji. In Runa’s own words :“The organizer asked me if I wanted someone to be at the event, I mentioned that I wanted Lata Ji.It was my lifelong ambition to meet Lata didi. They told me that it is very hard to manage her because she does not attend many events. So I had very little hope that this would happen. I was rehearsing back stage, when I saw a woman in white sari with a rose at a far distance. I felt it was her but was not being very hopeful, because the organizers would have mentioned to me if she came. Later, when she actually came closer I could not believe my eyes. I was surprised to see her.I ran up to her and greeted her by touching her feet. She held me and gave me a hug and photographers were taking pictures. Lata Ji gave a speech, presented me a garland necklace and stayed for the entire performance which was a very big thing for me! Having her in the audience was quite encouraging.”This generous act of Lata Mangeshkar was taken as an alibi by her detractors, including Raju Bhartan who went on the extent of saying that Lata came to gauge how Runa Laila sang. According to him-in his bundle of lies called ‘Lata Mangeshkar : A Biography’, once Lata was confirmed that Runa Laila was no threat to her musically, she left the programme. Contrast it with Laila’s own account that Lata sat through the programme. According to Mr. Bharatan in the presence of Lataji confidence was missing in Runa. Contrast it with Runa’s own statement that to have Lataji in the audience was a big thing for her and was encouraging.When asked about all those rumours we keep hearing which say the Mangeshkar sisters jeopardised her career she said there was no truth in them. “It wasn't as easy to come to India back then as it is now. That's all there is to it. You had to be in Mumbai to make a career in playback and I simply didn't want to migrate to India.”However, if you read the following lines of one of the same interviews, you would know which sister jeopardised her career:Bappida used the hit single, De de pyar de in the film Sharaabi (1984).It did pinch me then, as Prakash Mehra (director of Sharaabi) said he would like to retain my voice. I don’t know what happened and why Bappida didn’t call me. It’s still not clear. I’m happy that Ashaji did such a fabulous job.”Now who has sung De De Pyar De in Sharabi. Lataji, no.Ashaji, YesAgain,Lataji not Ashaji was even present at her very first song recording with Kalyanji-Anandji duo in 1975 for a film called ‘Ek Se Badhkar Ek’ (released in 1976) on its Muhurat to give her blessing.She even offered her bouquet. The song was title song of the movie which was picturised on Helen.See the links below:https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-206351Beyond borders Runa LailaThe Nightingale SpeaksNone of the above mentioned grace was shown by Asha Bhosle ever.On the contrary she had the audacity of dubbing the song ‘Jhoothe Naina Boley’ from Lekin (1991) sung by Padamja Joglekar. Listen to Padamja’s version of the song in a video uploaded on You Tube by Padamja herself :Now one can say why Lataji allowed Ashaji to dub Padamja’s song. The thing is as soon as Asha’s children became adult, Lata Mangeshkar did not have the courage to say anything to Asha. Even at Lataji’s prime Asha had the guts to lose her her temper at her elder sister (when both of them were not even at talking terms) when the later was taking too much time in rehearsal of ‘Kar Gaya Re Kar Gaya Mujhpe Jaadoo’ (Basant Bahar, 1956) on the day of recording as well. This happened when even the music makers Shankar-Jaikishan were having great rapport with Lataji and would call her only in Lata’s absence (Boot Polish, 1954) or in a duet (like the one mentioned) or in a raunchy song like ‘Mud Mud Ke Na Dekh’ (Shree 420). Please hear it from horse’s mouth:https://www.glamsham.com/en/when-asha-bhosle-lost-her-temper-on-elder-sister-lata-mangeshkarIt did not stop here. In Rudaali (1993), the song ‘Samay o Dheere Chalo’ was recorded in the voices of Lata Mangeshkar, Bhupen Hazarika and Asha Bhosle. Do you know whose version was retained in the movie : Asha Bhosle’s. For she had sung the song better than her didi and on this count nobody can blame her.Even in televised version of ‘Jana Gana Mana’ (2000) it is Asha Bhosle who got more audio-visual presence than Lata Mangeshkar. In ‘Aaina Hai Mera Chehra’ (Aaina, 1993), Lataji had only a couple of lines to sing.19) Much has been written about Lata Mangeshkar so called blocking of Vani Jairam’s career without much credence. It needs to asked from believers of such gossips as to why Lata Mangeshkar could not stop Vani Jairam from recording for Meera in 1976 (released in 1979), a very prestigious project with direction by Gulzar, the numero uno actress of the time essaying the role of eponymous character and late Pandit Ravi Shankar giving the music, the way she had allegedly blocked Vani Jairam’s other recordings? Had Lata just met Panditji in Mumbai, all possibility of Vani Jairam recording for Meera would have gone into thin air, given the fact that Lata was the first choice to playback for Meera, given her Sati Savitri image (whatever she may be in real life), her Meera Bhajan albums (Meera Bhajans in 1968 and Chala Vahi Des :Meera Bhajans in 1974)being among HMV bestsellers as far as devotional music is concerned, her standing in the film industry (where many of them had still not come to terms with the fact that she was no longer numero uno) and her earlier working relationship with Pandit Ravi Shankar with whom she had worked in Anuradha(1960) and Godaan (1963) not to forget her bonding with the director of the film Gulzar, who still remembers that she was the artist singing his first song and Hema Malini, who despite being a Tamilian herself, was just too keen that Lata should give playback for her in this movie.But Lata did not do that, given the fact that she was stubborn to the hilt. She wanted her only brother Hridaynath to compose the music for a theme, which she believed was his forte as he had composed most of her devotional albums including Meera albums. She wanted this to showcase her brother’s talent. She did not yield to the pressure. Monopolistic people need to be manipulative and manipulative people are not known to be stubborn, they are known to flexible enough to mould themselves according to situation.That Lata could not have her way (have her brother at the helm of affairs of music department of Meera), back in 1976, speaks volumes about the so-called ‘power’, ‘clout’ and ‘command’ wielded by her in the Hindi film industry. This one incident cuts to shred all accusations of her so-called ‘monopoly’ assiduously planted over-the-years by the losers, the ones who could not make it big to hide their failure with great support from film journals/magazines at that time, which was hungry for spicy and sensational stories to increase its readership. At the strongest point of her career she was only as powerful to leave a project not to make someone obey on dotted lines.Same way she could have easily patched-up with O P Nayyar, once Asha fell out with him or with Nadeem-Shravan after Gulshan Kumar’s murder. She did none.20) In 2011 Asha claimed that Lataji would be singing one of the songs in her acting debut ‘Mai’(2013).Lata Mangeshkar agrees to sing in Asha Bhonsle’s debut movieWhen the film released there were no songs of Lataji. Turned out, it was a clever marketing gimmick by Asha Bhosle. It was also discovered that this movie was not her acting debut, for she debuted as an child artiste at the age of 12 in Badi Maa (1945), in which Lataji sang for her. Turned out, Asha wanted Lata ghost off her, once and for all. And to come out of shadow of that great Banyan Tree called Lata Mangeshkar,Asha Bhosle can speak any amount of untruth, ably supported by a media and social media which grind mill runs on lies, which never cross-checks the veracity of a news before bringing it in public domain. Contrast this to Lata Mangeshkar’s production Lekin (1991) where Asha Bhosle had a beautiful number ‘Joothe Naina Boley Saanchi Batiyan’ along with Satyasheel Deshpande.So, for an audience , growing on such staple diet of lies, spread by news hungry 24*7 speaking TV correspondents & anchors and FM RJs having half baked information, believes what the vested people wants it to listen. Today, Asha is calling the shots, with her concerts, albums, occasional film songs, restaurants running all over the world and her appearances on Talent Hunt shows on TV. If one hears about Mangeshkar monopoly, but has no qualms about Asha’s hand in it, it is not just ignorance. It is the 24*7 work of her PR machinery, which is ably handled by her youngest son Anand Bhosle, after the suicide of her daughter Varsha Bhosle.With Lata’s international concert career ended 20 years back, with her last concert in India dating back to 15 years, with her last movie recording dating back to 2014 (released in 2015), her career is over. She does not require PR Machinery and she does not have a child to devote extensively to her career and get his own daughter (read Zanai Bhosle) promoted on the sidelines.Its for the PR prowess wielded by Asha, that nobody dares cross her. Not even Mohammed Rafi’s son whose father she insults every now and then by stating how she out-shadowed him way back in 1966. In one reality show she even claimed that she can turn the contestants into Mohammed Rafi.Before hitting out so hard on Lataji, he forgot that it was Lata, who has given his late father the best obituary ever and till date on her FB and Twitter handles, she remembers each and every great personality on his/her birth/ death anniversary ever so humbly in contrast with Asha who only remembers the movers and shakers of the industry.So, for younger generation Asha’s word is the word of Goddess, Asha being modern-day song diva. For this generation whose definition of music director begins with R D Burman and ends with A R Rahman (or Ilayraja if one is from south), it is notimportant to be inquisitive as to how Lata Mangeshkar was able to ruin the career of almost an entire generation of singers even though she sang only 6,541 songs as against 11,000 by Asha Bhosle and 17,695 by P Susheela.If P Susheela and Asha Bhosle achieve their feat, it is their talent. However, even if Lata Mangeshkar achieve a much lesser feat, it would be for her manipulative tactics. If Rafi/Kishore reign supreme between 1953–1968 and 1969–1987, it was their God like voice and versatility respectively, if Lata reigned supreme between 1949–1974 (career wise), it was due to her monopolistic behaviour.21)With media hype surrounding her, she has become more audacious and has started humiliating Lataji openly in public, who is just a pale and frail version of her past. In most of the functions she would pass snide remarks at Lataji for being a Bharat Ratna.At GIMA award ceremony held in 2011, wherein Lataji was to given Lifetime Achievement Award, she first made fun of her for arriving late despite being born earlier. When Lataji plainly replied ‘Asha has tortured me a lot, but I have forgiven her all the time’, first Ashaji said jokingly ‘You would have to forgive me’. To which her elder sister said ‘Yes I have to do’.Asha suddenly got irritated and snubbed Lataji to the shock of everybody by saying ‘Nobody can forgive.Only a mother can’. Lataji did not say a single word. It happened in front of entire music industry.What a sadist way to humiliate someone at her felicitation. See the link below. Please observe camera focus on Usha Mangeshkar’s reaction, when Ashaji rebukes Lataji. Ironically, it is the same Ushaji who took care of Lataji’s food preparation after she was slow poisoned in 1962.It is worth mentioning that way back in 1997 too when Asha’s daughter accused Lataji of snatching ‘Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon’ from her mother, Lataji had kept quiet. With no offsprings of her own, she has to bear the brunt of humiliation meted out by Asha and her children every now and then either in media or in the family itself, with nobody to stand for her cause, nobody to speak for her.Industry folklore has it-and it has been accepted by Ashaji as well-it was Lataji with whom Asha’s son Anand Bhosle would spend most of his time in childhood. She would take him to her recordings. She would make his favorite ‘pasande Ka halwa’. Asha would not like it one bit. She would tell her younger son ‘go back to your mother, I am not your mother.’ To this, little Anand would exclaim ‘ I am not a Mangeshkar, I am a Bhosle’. Now the same Anand Bhosle makes derogatory comments about Lataji vocal prowess. Blood for sure is thicker than water.22)Of late you would find Lataji making self-deprecating statements like Ashaji was more versatile than her and that what Ashaji can do before mike she can never do.Had anybody heard/read/seen this as being told by Lata Mangeshkar at her prime? No. She is saying this because loneliness, old age, poor health and abrupt end of her career have brought her morale to an all time low.It is the ‘never say die’ attitude of Ashaji, which makes her keep on reinventing herself and to never sit on her past laurels. It is the same indefatigable attitude and unquenchable thirst & thrust do something more, something extra, something better than others, by hook or by crook, that make her so intolerant towards others achievement, so cruel, so cunning and so conniving.23)In November, 2015 Lata Mangeshkar extended help to ailing Mubarak Begum-the same begum who would often accuse Lata of ensuring that she had no work. See the link below:Lata Mangeshkar extends helping hand to ailing Mubarak BegumOde to the nightingale, Lata MangeshkarIn 2009 Lataji offered help to Mehdi Hassan in his last days when she came to know about his strained financial condition. See the link below.Mehdi Hassan to visit India, wants to meet Lata, Dilip KumarSimilarly, in 2013 she visited thespian Dilip Kumar.My 'choti behen, Lata' @mangeshkarlata visited us today. pic.twitter.com/BlhdHuHZ4A— Dilip Kumar (@TheDilipKumar) December 21, 2013Ashaji did not do any such thing for old timer’s sake. She does not have time for such nostalgia.However, she ensured to meet Anu Malik-referred to as pervert by Shweta Pandit- in May, 2016 when he was hospitalised in Lilavati Hospital. And do you know what she got in return, a song in his movie ‘Begum Jaan’ (2017)-after a gap of 11 years-picturised on Vidya Balan. Even if the opening words of the song were strikingly similar to a bhajan sung by Lata Mangeshkar for Pandit Hridaynath Mangeshkar in non-film album Meera, Soor,Kabira (2001). While Lata’s Kabir bhajan goes ‘Na main dharmi’ Asha’s song is ‘Prem mein tohre’. Asha can go to any extent for a song, even now. See the link below :Asha Bhosle visits ailing Anu Malik in the hospital - Bollywood Hungama

THEY ARE NOT A GOOD INVESTMENT. Mistaken political virtue is the only reason for their popularity as wind and solar renewables are not cost effective because of intermittency when the wind does not blow or the sun shine and storage is too weak. The achilles heel of renewables is the need for back up oil or other fossil fuels as an added cost pushing up the price.Here is a well researched book of 450 pages by Ian Plimer of Australia with detailed footnotes debunking wind and solar.See discussion of this excellent book later.Ian Plimer: The Climate Change Delusion and The Great Electricity RipoffOctober 5, 2017 by stopthesethings 21 CommentsIan Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published numerous scientific papers, 7 books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology.Ian also manages to draw plenty heat for his attack on global warming hysteria. What impresses STT is that, unlike his interlocutors, Ian Plimer’s grasp on the facts goes back some 4.6 billion years, as long as this orb has been lapping the Sun, rather than the last Tweet that popped up five minutes ago.Ian managed to infuriate the wind and sunshine cult with his last book ‘Not for Greens’. And, no doubt, his latest effort will do just the same.Ian’s latest work, ‘The Climate Change Delusion and The Great Electricity Ripoff’ has just been released and is available from Connorcourt Publishing by clicking here.Here’s the publisher’s blurb:How did one of the world’s largest exporters of coal, gas and uranium end up with unreliable and expensive energy? Massive subsidies for renewable energy, gaming of the electricity market and government mandates have closed coal-fired generators that previously provided cheap reliable electricity.Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther objected to indulgences. Today indulgences are sought as subsidies from consumers for renewable energy generators in the name of the environmental religion.It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming and the recent massive increases in emissions produced no warming.This book shows that renewable energy creates massive environmental damage and much of the generously-funded climate science is underpinned by fraud. The end result is high electricity prices.However, there is a simple solution to the suicidal energy policy created by pandering to green hysteria that gave us ruinable energy.This is a book that those battling the greatest fraud of all time will purchase in multiples: copies for friends and family, even more copies to drop on the desks of journalists, politicians, planning authorities, for their educative benefit, and, just for fun, lobbed at the goons who people the wind industry.Rollicking over 450 pages, Ian collects a raft of facts, data and details on the greatest government backed scam of all time: mandated and subsidised wind and solar power.Here’s an extract (minus footnotes) from his chapter on the great wind power fraud:WindMiguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote saw wind mills as evil giants fit only for destruction. I do also but for different reason.Not one country in the world is powered by wind energy. Wind power provides too much power one minute and not enough the next.Windmills may have been first used by the Persians in 500 to 900 AD, they were used by the Chinese from about 1200 AD and the Old World is littered with ruins of wind mills. When more reliable sources of water and power were available, wind mills fell into disuse. Wind power reached its zenith 400 years ago. Centuries ago, wind was used for pumping water and grinding grain and these processes did not have to be undertaken all the time. Wind energy was replaced by steam generated from burning coal. Since then, the increasing energy requirements, energy density, inefficiency and unreliability made wind power more and more expensive. Small windmills pump water in isolated areas for stock. They are slowly being replaced by diesel- or solar-driven pumps. For hundreds of years, industrial wind mills have been useless. They still are.Despite massive subsidies for competing energy such as wind and solar, coal producers and coal-fired electricity generators are not subsidised and face punitive regulatory barriers and massive environmental and legal costs just to establish an employment-creating business. It is only by mandating and subsidising increasing proportions of electricity consumption from the highest cost renewable sources, thereby driving up electricity prices, that governments have made cheap coal-fired energy more expensive and comparable in price to wind energy. A false market has been created and you are paying for this with your electricity bill.The International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends show that wind provided 0.46% of global energy in 2014 with solar and tide combined provided 0.35%. The rest of the energy is solid, gaseous and liquid fuels which do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry. If we round the wind contribution of total global energy to the nearest whole number, it is 0%. Why do we even bother?Wind energy damages the environment, health and prosperity. Wind power is:1.Unstable and erratic. This, of course, is the bleeding obvious. It is only in parts of Antarctica that the wind blows constantly. Elsewhere in the world, the wind does not blow constantly. When it blows, it is erratic and it may not blow for days. In periods of high wind, the grid becomes overloaded or the turbines have to be shut down to avoid mechanical damage. German wind turbines put out a miserable 18% of their installed rated capacity. Wind companies claim that their turbines will power thousands of households but fail to state that this can only be achieved when the wind velocity is incessant and at a constant velocity. The wind companies such as AGL feed the public with fraud.2.Wind turbines are expensive. The return on investment takes many years, even in places where the wind blows often (e.g. coastal areas, offshore, hill tops). Unless there are generous long-term subsidies paid by consumers and taxpayers, wind projects are poor investments. Because wind projects use subsidies and not wind to generate income, generated electricity is expensive. Governments have been totally commercially naïve and electricity prices have skyrocketed because there is a mandatory feed-in of wind energy.3.Excess wind power is very difficult to store. We are a very long way away from being able to store large amounts of electricity. Large batteries are expensive, short-lived, heavy and can be a fire hazard. Pumping water to a higher dam is hopelessly inefficient as is the conversion of water to hydrogen using electricity.4.Destruction of the environment. Turbines are in rural, scenic and forest areas. Plants and animals lose their habitats and there needs to be land clearing for the turbines and new access roads. Environmentalists complain about land clearing yet are happy to destroy the environment for wind industrial complexes. Wind industrial complexes require orders of magnitude more land than coal-fired or nuclear power stations.5.Birds and bats are slaughtered. Each year millions of birds, especially raptors, and bats are killed worldwide by turbine blades. If environmentalists were really concerned about saving the planet, they would first try to save unnecessary slaughter of wildlife. If killing on such a scale was done by another industry, there would be uproar.6.Flying ice. In winter at high latitudes, ice builds up on blades and is later thrown as projectiles. This danger to people and property has been totally ignored by environmentalists.7.Aesthetics. Huge towers, spinning blades and land clearing are a blight on the landscape. Many turbines are on the tops of hills. Environmental objections to many projects is often on aesthetic grounds, except for bird- and bat-chomping wind towers. The proximity of these ugly monstrosities to urban areas lowers property values.8.Health. Wind turbines produce flickering light and infrasound which can have a profound effect on some people. Infrasound, low frequency sound below the human threshold of hearing, is used as a military weapon because the inner ear pressure pulses is disorienting. Long term exposure damages health. If any other industry besides the wind industry damaged human health, environmentalists would be up in arms. If wind turbines are safe, I see no reason why they can’t be in the middle of cities in order to avoid voltage drop with long-distance transmission.9.Increased carbon dioxide emissions. Wind industrial complexes emit monstrous amount of carbon dioxide in their construction and maintenance. Furthermore, carbon dioxide emitting coal-fired power stations need to be operating for when the wind does not blow.10.Toxic pollution. Wind turbine blades cannot be recycled. Land fill and incineration emit toxic chemicals into the environment. If a factory emitted such toxins, it would be closed.The mantra given by greens is that wind power is non-polluting and free. Not so. Processing of the rare-earth minerals mined at Bayan Obo in China has left a huge toxic, radioactive waste pile that affects the locals but is unseen by those that promote wind power. Neodymium-samarium magnets are used in the turbine.Low frequency noise, possibly as low as 8 Hz, derives from spinning blades on a wind power station. This has physical and psychological effects on humans and it is not known what effects low frequency noise has on animals. However, mammals feel distress, confusion and fear from the unheard infrasound in the roar of the big cats. These medical effects of noise from wind turbines at this stage are difficult to quantify, medical research is at an early stage, further work is needed but reports from residents living near wind turbines suggest serious unresolved problems resulting from low frequency infrasound.The wind power companies and green activists are only too well aware of the effects low frequency noise on human health. Green left activists are very vocal about what can’t be seen (e.g. radiation) but are hypocritically silent about what can’t be heard. Inaudible sound maybe can’t be heard but can be felt.Wind generating facilities cannot exist without fossil fuels. The energy density of wind is very low. If all of the electricity requirements of the USA were to be from wind, then an area the size of Italy would be required. The resources that a wind turbine uses just don’t seem to get mentioned by the green left promoters.Wind power provides electricity intermittently regardless of demand, cannot provide electricity when it is needed (i.e. peak demand times) and a spinning reserve of coal- and gas-fired plants need to keep operating and releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere whether the wind blows or not.Large wind turbines need to extract energy from the grid to start and when the turbine is not spinning it still requires energy for the controls, lights, communications, sensors, metering, data collection, oil heating, pumps, coolers and gearbox filtering systems. This comes from the grid and is provided by burning coal. The bottom line is that wind turbines cannot be built, operated or maintained without using fossil fuels.….No, the bottom line is that Ian Plimer’s latest book is a must have for anyone even vaguely interested in energy policy and how and why it has been hijacked by a band of ideologically driven lunatics. So, why not do yourself a favour, and snap up a dozen copies today?But, despite all the hundreds of billions of dollars, euros and pounds Western countries have already put into wind farms and solar panels, the results are not, so far, encouraging, According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, wind turbines are currently supplying only 1.2 per cent of the world’s energy. The contribution from solar is just 0.3 per cent.James Grant Matkin says:December 1, 2018 at 9:47 amThe failure of wind and solar is the failure of storage technology. The campaign for alternative energy misjudged the failure to overcome intermittency. The result is subsidies for green energy border on government fraud making ‘green energy is the perfect scam.’ Notable quotations –“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett ***GREEN Energy Is The Perfect ScamReply·stopthesethings says:December 1, 2018 at 10:18 amJames, as you put it “The failure of wind and solar is the failure of storage technology”.You must mean “failure” in terms of its failure to exist?STT can’t blame unicorns or pixies for the things that they did or did not do, because there are no such things. It’s the same with large-scale power storage.Every system that presently exists consumes electricity during every recharge/discharge cycle, thereby reducing the amount of power that would have been available had it been consumed directly from the generation source. As yet, humans have not invented the perpetual motion machine, or otherwise overcome the laws of physics. There is no material that can store and discharge electricity without losing energy as heat. Superconductors exist, but only operate under ultra-high pressure and at supercritical, subzero temperatures.Renewable energy zealots keep talking about storage as if they had merely forgotten to include it as part of their inevitable transition to an all wind and sun powered future. A quick trip to the shops, and they’ll be back with oodles of storage to redeliver wind and solar power to all comers, at 1970s prices.It is, of course, simply an extension of the original fraud.Batteries No Cure for Chaotic Delivery of Wind & Solar: Mega-Cost Kills Mythical Mega-Battery StorageInsane $Trillion Cost Means Mega-Batteries Won’t Save Chaotically Delivered Wind & SolarReplyoJames Grant Matkin says:December 7, 2018 at 4:05 pmYes. I agree with storage is the problem and it does not exist.Ian Plimer: The Climate Change Delusion and The Great Electricity RipoffScotland Squanders ₤Billions on Subsidised Wind & Gets Stone Age Power in ReturnJune 4, 2017 by stopthesethings 6 CommentsNicola Sturgeon: exultant wind industry profiteer.***A decade or so from now, when thousands of wind turbines are quietly rusting in some dimwit’s back paddock, the next generation will rightly ask why states and whole nations squandered $billions on a wholly weather dependent power source, abandoned centuries ago for pretty obvious reasons?Scotland Squanders ₤Billions on Subsidised Wind & Gets Stone Age Power in Returnhttps://www.academia.edu/22445354/WIND_AND_SOLAR_debacle_from_intermittency._Australia_hospitals_shut_down_because_of_less_Grid_coal_power-_people_will_die_if_this_renewable_energy_idiocy_continues._EXPAND_HYDROPOWER_and_end_subsidies_is_smarterOpinionsBernie Sanders’s magical thinking on climate changeSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gives a victory speech in Manchester, N.H., after winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)ByFareed ZakariaColumnistFeb. 13, 2020 at 4:15 p.m. PSTThe prospect of Bernie Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee has startled many people who worry that his brand of democratic socialism won’t sell and would pave the way for a second Trump term. This might well be true, but it considers Sanders solely through the lens of electability. Surely the more important question is not whether his programs would be popular but whether they are good. It’s time to stop grading Sanders on a curve and to start asking what the country would look like if he were to become president.Let’s consider the topic that he argues is “the single greatest challenge” facing the United States and a “global emergency”: climate change. Sanders wants to commit the country to achieving 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030, and the total decarbonization of the economy by 2050. These are laudable though ambitious goals. The question is, how will the United States go about meeting them?Under President Barack Obama, the United States reduced emissions more than any other country. It did it through many paths, but the biggest one was — fracking.U.S. carbon emissions fell almost 15 percent from 2005 to 2016. According to Carbon Brief, the single largest cause was the shift from coal-fired power plants to natural gas ones, making up 33 percent of the reduction. Adoption of solar power accounted for 3 percent. (Natural gas has much lower rates of carbon emission than does coal. It also produces much less pollution than coal, saving thousands of lives in the United States every year.)Nevertheless, Sanders is opposed to natural gas. He opposes all new fracking and seeks to ban it nationwide within five years. He also intends to rapidly shut down all gas plants.Natural gas accounts for about 30 percent of the energy consumption in the United States today. Wind and solar are under 5 percent. So the plan would require an exponential jump in renewables — in just a few years.And even if that happened, it would be extremely difficult to replace gas as a source for electricity. Talk to any electric utility company and they will explain. Because solar and wind are intermittent sources, they require a backup source to provide electricity to homes, offices and factories 24/7. That raises the costs associated with solar and wind.Sanders has a solution: storage. If we had the means to store electricity on a massive scale, such as batteries, there would be no need for backup power. But we are not even close to having the kind of storage capacity we would need to make this work. One example: The Clean Air Task Force, an energy policy think tank, calculated that for California to reach 100 percent electricity from renewables, it would need 36.3 million megawatt-hours of energy storage. It currently has 150,000 megawatt-hours of storage. In other words, the state would need to increase storage by 24,000 percent in a matter of years. Batteries are getting cheaper, but not quickly enough.There is another path to clean energy, a source that has zero carbon emissions and provides a continuous flow of electricity: nuclear power. It generates about 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. It is the largest source of power in France and provides 40 percent of power in Sweden, two countries with carbon emission rates that are among the lowest per person in the industrialized world.But Sanders opposes nuclear power. In fact, he plans to shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants within 10 years. Fears about nuclear power, which Sanders clearly shares, are largely based on emotional reactions to the few high-profile accidents that have taken place over the past few decades. Such anxiety also ignores the millions of people who die each year because of fossil fuels. Our World in Data, an Oxford University publication, released a comprehensive accounting of the safest sources of energy, considering all harmful effects, including accidents. Nuclear energy was 250 times safer than oil and more than 300 times safer than coal.Let me be clear. Natural gas and nuclear power have drawbacks and costs. There is no perfect energy solution on hand today. But I believe we do face a global emergency and need every means possible to reduce emissions — now. Not tomorrow, not in theory. Now.The Sanders green energy “plan” is based on magical thinking. It presumes that we can reduce emissions in electricity and transport to zero in 10 years while simultaneously shutting down the only two low-emission, always-available sources of power that together provide nearly 60 percent of our country’s electricity. And that makes me wonder: Is the real problem that Sanders will lose — or that he might win?https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-magical-thinking-on-climate-change/2020/02/13/3944e472-4ea5-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.htmlWhat is the contribution of wind energy in combatting climate change?James Matkin, former Deputy Minister at Government of British Columbia (1974-1983)Updated SunOriginally Answered: How can wind energy help combat global warming?Wind energy does not combat global warming. It makes electricity much more expensive because the grid must operate 7/24 with a fossil fuel back up often coal. The reason is wind is intermittent and often when needed the most during very hot or cold days there is no wind.Data proves there is no hope without magic of wind or solar replacing fossil fuels, notwithstanding massive wasted subsidies.Figure 2. Global coal consumption by region (million tonnes of oil equivalent per year). BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019. (Coal to remain ‘King’ in Southeast Asia)And that help will likely carry on for decades…Japan: Back to the Fossil Fueled Future!Fareed Zakaria on Sunday exposed the false view of Bernie Sanders about wind and solar taking over in this timely video.Fareed's Take: Bernie Sanders' magical thinking on climate ...CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos › videos › 2020/02/15 › exp-gps-0216-fareeds-take5 days ago - CNN's Fareed Zakaria gives his take on why Bernie Sanders has an unrealistic approach to achieving deep cuts in carbon emissions.Fareed's Take: Bernie Sanders' magical thinking on climate - CNN VideoBloomberg misspoke at the debate because China’s carbon emissions are increasing mostly from new coal plants as they are preferred over too expensive wind and solar.The Coal, Hard TruthChina's New Coal 6 Times Higher than Wind, 27 Times Higher than Solar in 2013German Weekly ‘FOCUS’: German Wind Energy On The Verge Of “Collapse”…”Protests Booming”By P Gosselin on 1. February 2020Despite the German government’s renewed commitment to meeting its CO2 emissions target by expanding wind energy, online weekly FOCUS here reports that wind energy appears to be on the verge of collapse and that “German climate targets are in danger.”Bleak times for Germany’s wind industry. Photo. P. GosselinLowest activity since ‘Energiewende’ began in 2000FOCUS cites wind industry officials who say that the building of wind parks has reached the lowest point in 20 years. The industry associations are calling on the government to take action and for approval procedures for wind farms to be simplified and acceptance by residents increased.Falling acceptanceMany German states have imposed strict setback rules to keep wind parks away from residential areas. For example, the 10H rules is in effect in Bavaria. Here, a wind turbines cannot be located near residents at a distance that is closer than 10 times its height, making many wind projects in the south German state impossible. The industry is pressuring governments to soften the rules.Yet an online poll conducted by FOCUS shows that almost two thirds of respondents are not in favor or are undecided on reducing setback distances.Protest against wind energy “booming these days”Earlier in 2019, Germany’s centre-left Tagesspiegel here reported, “The protest against wind energy is booming these days” and according analysts, “about 1000 citizens’ initiatives are currently fighting against the wind industry in Germany” and that “they are very well networked”.55% less turbines built in 2019The lack of acceptance among the public — along with economic and technical obstacles — has put the brakes on wind park construction. FOCUS writes: “According to the industry associations Bundesverband Windenergie (BWE) and VDMA Power Systems, only 325 new wind turbines with 1078 megawatts were built in 2019. This was 55 percent less than in the previous year.”"Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" - Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English - by Pierre L. GosselinWind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energyCharles Rotter / January 10, 2019From The SpectatorWe urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclearMatt RidleyThe Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.Matt Ridley and climate change campaigner Leo Murray debate the future of wind power:Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energyThe last few years have been dark times for solar stocks. Between cheap competition from China and the recent tariffs on solar panels, many solar-focused funds are down by double digits.But, in truth, solar power is down, but not out. It’s still a critical part of our transition to renewable energy. U.S. solar capacity is still expected to double in the next five years.Solar Stocks are Making a ComebackENERGY MARKETS IGNORE RENEWABLES WORLD WIDE SO THEIR IMPACT IS CLOSE TO ZERO.Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energyCharles Rotter / January 10, 2019From The SpectatorWe urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclearMatt RidleyThe Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.Matt Ridley and climate change campaigner Leo Murray debate the future of wind power:Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.As more evidence emerges that there is no climate crisis the result is governments will stop wasting funds on wind and solar subsidies and these failed alternatives will falter. This will harm the millions of investments in these technologies that will become stranded without the subsidy pork barrel.Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energyRegarding Green “Schist”SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS NOVEMBER 25, 2019New clean energy investment in developing nations slipped sharply last year: reportNina ChestneyLONDON (Reuters) – New clean energy investment slid by more than a fifth in developing countries last year due to a slowdown in China, while the amount of coal-fired power generation jumped to a new high, an annual survey showed on Monday.Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) surveyed 104 emerging markets and found that developing nations were moving towards cleaner power sources, but not fast enough to limit carbon dioxide emissions or the effects of climate change.New investment in wind, solar and other clean energy projects dropped to $133 billion last year from $169 billion a year earlier, mainly due to a slump in Chinese investment, the research showed.China’s clean energy investment fell to $86 billion from $122 billion a year earlier. Investment by India and Brazil also declined, mainly due to lower costs for solar and wind.However, the volume of coal-fired power generation produced and consumed in developing countries increased to a new high of 6,900 terrawatt hours (TWh) last year, from 6,400 TWh in 2017.The increase of 500 TWh is equivalent to the power consumed in the U.S. state of Texas in one year. Coal accounted for 47% of all power generation across the 104 countries.[…]ReutersAccording to BP’s 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy, the “world” generated 15.9 billion mmBtu (converted from TWh) of energy from renewable sources from 2017-2018. This works out to $19.05/mmBtu, about 10 times the cost of natural gas.Energy Returned on Capital Invested: Ohio “Shale” vs Green “Schist”Energy Returned on Capital Invested: Ohio “Shale” vs Green “Schist”Democrats deliberately conceal global energy & CO2 emissions realities from the publicGuest Blogger / October 5, 2019Guest essay by Larry HamlinThe Democratic Party’s Green New Deal energy schemes pushing pipe dreams of 100% emissions free electricity in the U.S. by 2050 conceal well established global energy and emissions realities showing world fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions will continue to significantly increase in future decades regardless of the misguided, hugely expensive ($500 billion dollars per year) and incompetent (significant amounts of grid reliability backup fossil generation preclude zero emissions) GND energy proposals.The most recent analysis of global energy use and CO2 emissions evaluating the period from 2018 to 2050 conducted by EIA shows the world’s developing nations controlling nearly seventy percent of all energy use and three quarters of all man made CO2 emissions on earth in year 2050.These overwhelming dominating year 2050 levels of global energy use and CO2 emissions by the developing nations further increase their already commanding year 2018 energy use and emissions outcomes where about two thirds of all man made CO2 emissions and sixty percent of all energy use on earth are from these nations.Despite the fact that the developed nations are forecast to see little energy growth and reduce emissions through 2050 from year 2018 levels and that these nations fossil fuel use is forecast to decline during this interval global use of fossil fuels are forecast to climb by 25% and man made CO2 emissions to increase by 22% during this period driven by the developing nations unquenchable thirst for growing energy requirements to improve their economies.The developing nations are forecast to be accountable for 87% of all global energy growth and 100% accountable for all man made CO2 emissions growth during the interval between 2018 and 2050.The developing nations are forecast to increase use of all fossil fuels including natural gas, petroleum and coal with these resources representing nearly seventy percent of these nations total energy needs in year 2050.The developed nations are also forecast to use fossil fuels for the majority of their energy needs in year 2050 with nearly two thirds of these nations energy needs met by fossil fuels. The man made CO2 emissions impacts of the continued global reliance on fossil fuels (completely dominated by the developing nations energy use) for meeting world energy needs is shown below.The Democrats GND schemes will cost U.S. citizens trillions of dollars and end up having zero results on lowering global CO2 emissions levels that are completely controlled by the world’s developing nations with these nations fully committed to continued and growing use of fossil fuels.The American people are being deliberately mislead by the Democrats about global energy use and CO2 emissions outcomes and lied to regarding their phony “fighting climate change” claims because their GND energy scheme outcomes are irrelevant to global energy use and CO2 emissions results (global CO2 levels inexorably climb upward by more than 8.4 billion metric tons by year 2050) that are solely controlled by the world’s developing nations that dominate all global energy use and CO2 emissions consequences.The Democrats and their media propagandists need to be held accountable for their deplorable distortions, deceptions and dishonesty in addressing energy and CO2 emissions issues with the American public.Hopefully the election next year will provide an opportunity for addressing this failure of accountability by the Democratic Party to truthfully present global energy and CO2 emissions outcomes to our country’s citizens.WRITTEN BY PIERRE GOSSELIN ON FEB 3, 2020. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSGerman Power Companies Reveal More Rate Hikes Averaging 8.1%Leading dailies in Germany are reporting today that power companies across the country will be hiking electricity prices once again in the February to April period, affecting millions of households.This comes at the heels of a January price hike.“The wave of electricity price increases in Germany is not abating. According to figures from the comparison and brokerage portal Verivox, 86 utilities have announced average price increases of 8.1 percent for the months February to April,” writes Germany’s flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) here.“For a family with an annual consumption of 4000-kilowatt hours, this would mean additional costs of around 100 euros per year.”Already in January, “543 basic utilities had already increased their electricity prices,” according to the FAZ. “The average increase was 5.4 percent.”The price hikes come just as Germany’s electricity rates have become among the world’s highest. Annually tens of thousands of German households see their power cut off because they are unable to pay their bills.A large portion of the rate hike is due to the feed-in tariffs for green energies such as wind and sun.Read more at No Tricks ZoneGerman Power Companies Reveal More Rate Hikes Averaging 8.1%